Reader comments

The Rosenberg Police Department is also an equal opportunity employer. The Department is led by a bisexual chief and several other Detectives and administration employees are bi or gay. Finally this is getting out in the open and seems to be more accepted.

This is great news for Hanley! This new bar is situated in the Cultural Quarter and that is how it should be, the UK is coming out of the dark ages and celebrating the fact that there are peaceful minorities that deserve better. The Rainbow Flag is a flag of PEACE and I would like to see people educating themselves to be peaceful with other minorities than killing each other, which happens in other parts of the world.

Yeha totally Stoke is Sooooooooo NOT a sleepy city. The club has become a mega part of Stoke now it pulls in a huge crowd every weekend and i hope this new gay bar does just as well… Good luck xxxLindsey

Please note that in his article title “Permanent AIDS Memorial planned for Brighton”, Torsten Hojer, says that Manchester’s Whitworth Gardens houses the only other permanent memorial in the UK.This is factually incorrect, It’s Manchester’s Sackville Park that that holds the “Beacon of Hope”, right in the heart of Manchester’s Internationally famous Gay Village

Is marriage a religious institution? I feel at times I am the only gay person that is not satisfied by the term “civil union”. To me it feels like a consolation prize given as a means of pacifying gays. Throw them a few crumbs as their used to and they’ll shut up. Truthfully, I hope that we gay men and woman will not stop at gay unions and go after what we truly deserve, that being gay marriage. I am saddened but not surprised that many gays are willing to accept second class citizenship after all it is what we are accustomed to. Our entire gay civil rights movement that is being courageously fought by a very few, has been about equal rights, not just some rights. This of course means marriage as well. We should not be satisfied by civil unions. Unions are not equal. It’s unfortunate that this issue has become so politicized as did the civil rights movement back in the 60’s. Even the politicians that are privately in favor of gay marriage are afraid to speak openly about it with the exception of a few impassioned politicians that have a strong sense of integrity and a clear view of what is right and wrong. We cannot look to the bible for any answers regarding equal rights. Those laws were written at a different time and for an ancient culture. It may surprise many to know that gay marriages were widely accepted by the Romans and the Greeks. We also must understand that many of the ancients were a very superstitious people that made many of their laws in regards to those superstitions. We therefore cannot be influenced by scripture. The many books within the bible vastly contradict themselves on issues to numerous to mention here. Which ones should we believe? Many religious institutions have the belief that sexual relations is solely for the purpose of procreation. This is an affront to childless marriages. Are they any less valid? Should they therefore not have sexual relations knowing full well that there will not be any children produced? I wonder why God would make sexuality so very pleasurable if it were only for the purpose of procreation. It wouldn’t need to be enjoyable. The mechanics of sexuality would be all that is necessary to create offspring. Beside don’t we live in a country that has a law about separation between church and state? Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. Even those damned heathens. Straight men and woman can choose a church marriage; they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace or even by a ship captain. However, the most romantic and holy place I can imagine to pledge ones vows of love and fidelity, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a happy meal. Don’t get me wrong, I do love happy meals. The best part is no one even has to bother to get out of the car. How can one compete with that kind of service? I’ve heard that they even change your oil while waiting but that may be just hearsay. Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except for gays. What was stated in that document still rings very clearly yet today and likely for many years to come. We don’t have to look too awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual Anglo-Saxon citizens so we could still own people. It wasn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that, slavery was legal. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren’t allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our nation’s history, we should then know that whenever we veer off from what that beautifully crafted document for whatever convenient reason, it is eventually overturned and changed for reasons of being fairer. I have still yet to hear a valid reason how gay marriage could negatively impact modern society. I’ve heard that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the potential of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of “traditional marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver http://www.aaronjasonsilver.com; Fennville, Mi 49408 for more information on issues within gay culture please read; “why gay men do what they do”, an inside look at gay culture.

Message to Aaron further to your posting on this page, We too, wish that the so-called ‘civil partnership’ should be called a marriage as in Spain, but, until the religious zealots come to their senses and truly believe ALL peoples are equal, we, the gay community will have to put up with the ‘crumbs’ as you have enably put it. We both enjoyed reading your posting.

Hi Aaron Jason Silver, I fully concur with your views on Civil Partnerships (CP) and what they represent. They are NOT about equality but were legislated so that religious denominations, in particular the Church of England, would not be offended. In other words, they deferred to religious bigotry rather than do the correct thing as Holland, Belgium, Spain, Canada and South Africa did. Case in point, if I were to go back to the land of my birth, i.e. the UK, and register for a Civil Partnership with my partner of 14 years and then returned to the U.S., our CP would NOT be recognized here. Whereas, if I legally married in any of those countries listed above, my marriage would be legal and recognized. More recently, NY State has just legislated that same-sex couples who marry legally elsewhere will have their marriages recognized in NY State. No portability at all for Civil Partnerships once you step outside the UK. That is one example of proof that these partnerships are not equal to marriage and NEVER will be. Marriage is the gold standard and no, marriage is NOT the domain of the religious institutions which maintain that marriage is for the sole purpose of procreation. It is also an civil institution, no connection with religion whatsoever. If the religious bigots insist that marriage is reserved only for a heterosexual male and female for the sole purpose of procreation, the mantra of the right wing religious bigots to justify discrimination against the LGBT community, then by the same token they must also concede that heterosexual married couples who elect not to procreate or those who cannot biologically reproduce, they too should be subjected to the denial of a marriage licence. Democracy, true democracy is about treating everyone equally and fairly. Civil Partnerships, Civil Unions, PACS, whatever they are called elsewhere are nothing more than state sanctioned discrimination, setting a whole group of people apart from the mainstream, separate and unequal, not separate but “equal” as some Gay apologists tout lately. Its absurd to even think they are equal. If they were more about equality, then CPs would have been opened to heterosexuals who choose not to marry. So its evident, these partnershps are NOT equal to marriage nor will they ever be. Though well intended in terms of granting Gays some of the rights and privileges of marriage, better than nothing as some say, they are not good enough and do not go far enough which proves they have nothing to do with equality at all but relegate us to second-class status. That is NOT what democracy is about.Robert, ex-pat Brit, New York, USA

Problem is will Gordon Brown rescind this and the other Gay Rights legislation?..he fought all of it in Tony Blair’s cabinet and tried to sabotage the Civil Partnerships Act by refusing to allow the financial provisions on Inheritance Tax and Public Service pension rights.Brown believes that homosexuality is a sin..

Don’t think he will somehow as I believe most of the legislation was passed by a ‘free vote’ representing the supreme freewill of Parliament. Subsequent Parliaments rarely, if ever, reverse laws passed on a free vote by a previous Parliament. That is why all those sanctimonous religious fanatics and hypocrits made such a song and dance about it. They know they have lost the arguement BIG TIME. Best regards,David

But having checked out the voting record, Gordon Brown did vote in favour of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation Regulations). That was the one that the religious fanatics really went on about. If he is against gay equality then why would he vote in favour of legislation furthing it?… doesn’t make sense to me.

To Robert (ex-pat)… I agree that UK Civil Partnerships are not equal to Marriage because of the name.However, if countries outside the UK do not recognise Civil Partnerships from Britain then that is surely THEIR prejudice?? The British government can’t tell other countries what legislation to accept or reject, indeed the majority of the world does not asign any legal status to same-sex relationships at all. For all their faults (and there are many) the UK government does actually recognise the many different civil unions (and as we know the rights they give gay couples varies very greatly from country to country) and marriage for same sex couples around the world as being automatically equal to UK Civil Partnerships, e.g. denmark, france, germany, netherlands, canada, etc etc. So why exactly can’t a country equate another country’s same-sex union/marriage legislation as an automatic equivilant to their local legislation? It’s not that hard is it?But as I said I agree, the UK government should indeed go the whole way and change the name from Civil Partnership to Marriage. Cos from where I’m standing that’s the only difference… the name.

FAO: William….by the same token, why doesn’t the UK reocgnise same-sex marriages performed in Canada, Holland, Belgium, Spain or South Africa? It shouldn’t matter if the UK refuses Gay couples the right to marry. Marriage is marriage no matter where its performed, hetero or homosexual. For any country where it is not yet legal, these marriages must and should be recognised. Its clear that Civil Partnerships/Unions are not equal, never will be no matter how many rights you may gain from them. Separate and unequal is not equality.

A little off-topic.Please, watch these photos from Moscow Gay Pride – 2007. Take a look at young man in bandana with Jolly Roger and the slogan “We believe in God”! This is the face of Russian “christians”.Take a look at the photo of too young women with headscarf and black shirts. They’re saying: “No gays and migrants in Russia! Russia is only for Russians!”.Take a look at the priest in BMW.

Montreal gay bar under fire :This is nothing new, and I wouldn’t care if I was turned away from a straight bar as they are trying to keep a certain style or mood to the atmosphere of the club. I also would not care if I was turned away from GAY lesbian bar either – no interest at all in either, but even if I did and it was stated clearly at the door “men only” – or “women only” that is a right I think of the proprietor – including saying “heterosexual only”. If they have to turn Le Stud into a private club, that has a written policy and also only grants access to non-members that are male with out of town identification – they should do it. There are the majority of the bars that DO include women, but in a leather Gay male bar I do not want to see someone of either gender in a dress.

Regarding California’s recent ruling that Gay inmates may have conjugal visits with their partners, does the UK prison system provide these rights to its prison population, Gay or Straight? Would be interested to know.Robert, ex-pat Brit, USA.

The Nothern Irish Judicial Review has in fact little do with the regulations themselves. It will look into the consultation process which resulted in their implementation. This is the only point of legality the Christian Institute and their friends have found to protest against the regulations. Whether the judge finds that there was indeed a problem with the consultation process, I don’t think, contrary to what is said in the article, that the result will have any effect on the England and Wales version of the regs which have always worked separately.It may not even have an impact on the NI regulations either.

I cannot express how brave I think Otsuji-san and her partner were by having a large, public wedding in Japan. otsuji-san is to be commended for her willingness to bring attention to herself and her personal life in an effort to force change in a society that is so extraordinarily turgid when it comes to social change.All I can say is best wishes to the hapy couple – and best of luck in the elections!Cheers,EricaYuricon – “For real women who like their women…animated.”

I cannot understand why this article has been included on the Pink News website.This website is supposed to be a Gay News website. Robert King is paedophile who has sexually abused underage boys. There is no mention in the article of his adult sexual orientation.Men who abuse underage boys are not necessarily homosexual in their adult sexual orientation. To include articles like this on a Gay News website sends out a dangerous message that there is some sort of link between gay men and peadophiles who abuse boys.

I think Hazel Blears is right on the money about the Conservatives. Let’s face it, it wasn’t they who proposed Civil Partnership legislation or any of the other equality laws. If they were truly interested in equality and really wanted to court the Gay vote, Cameron would have gone out on a limb and trounced Tony Blair. The fact is, he didn’t. So beware, Hazel is right about them. Don’t be lulled into a false sense of security by Cameron. His is still the party of the establishment and the majority of them are homophobic, period. Robert

Robert, you’re absolutely right. The Tories have not changed at all, apart from how they present themselves to the rest of us – which is a big lie.From how you write you must be either American or Canadian. Good to see you taking an interest in UK politics.Best wishes,Alan x

Illegal war in the middle east, millions left in poverty for their old age because someone’s been plundering the pension funds, the NHS torpedoed and sinking (yes, I know they created it, but it doens’t mean they have the right to destroy it), the gap between richest and poorest growing exponentially, higher taxation that we have every paid before, fines for for failing to help the environment by recycling your gin bottles from a government that is bringing back nuclear power, prisons full of criminals (as are the streets judging by the crime figures), but equality legislation introduced that would have been forced on us by Europe had we not done so.Jesus Christ some people live in a vacuum. I wouldn’t trust Labour to run a bath.

David Cameron is the only party leader to have publicly put civil partnerships on an equal footing with marriage (in his main Conservative Party Confreence speech last autumn), something the Labour party have consistently refused to do so.As for Labour’s Dear-Leader-In-Waiting, Gordon Brown has (as publicised last year by Pink News) consistenly refused to support or vote on any gay related legistaltion.I’m sure there are plently of older generation Labour supporters who would equally refuse to attend a civil partnership. This article is a non-story, and perhaps chipmunk Blears would do better focusing her ‘homophobic’ accusations at (gay?) Gordon Brown

Im a tory, and right wing, and I am a Councillor. My husband and I have been to 2 Civil Ceremonies, and are certainly NOT against them, in fact we support our friends who got married. Hazel blears is a nasty little pixie who just craves attention….

Alan, thank you for the compliment. I am in fact a native Brit living in New York City for 29 years and have dual nationality. I’ve always maintained an avid interest in all things political, especially when it comes to the UK. I can be more objective living over here but from my observations over the past decade of the political situation in the UK, it is quite obvious that the Labour Party has done far more than any Tory government have ever done in the interests of fairness and equality, though there is much more work to do. As your probably aware, our state Governor, Eliot Spitzer recently drafted legislation to grant Gay citizens full marriage equality in our state, though it has little chance of passing the first time around because of the conservative (republican) controlled state assembly, and in California, Gay marriage legislation has passed the state Assembly comfortably for the second time, but it two is expected to be vetoed by that state’s governor. So you see, marriage is the gold standard and our own governor is aware that Civil Unions do not offer equality at the national level. Inevitably, it will pass in both states once the Democrats (read Labour) are returned to office.Message for JP, the fact that David Cameron equates Civil Partnership with Marriage is a foil to attract moderate Labour voters. People seem to think that Civil Partnerships are the end of the road for LGBT equality. Dead wrong! If Civil Parnterships in Cameron’s view are on an equal footing, then why not officially declare CPs as legally recognised marriage once and for all? Maybe you should advocate your party to merge them into the Marriage Causation Act of 1973 and then see if Cameron and his party are truly supportive of marriage equality. Until then, his are just empty words to trick Gays into giving him their vote. Yes, there is homophobia in both parties, that will never change, but let’s face it, full equality will never be achieved with a Tory government in power. If they had taken the lead before Blair came to power, then we would not be having this discussion.Robert, ex-pat Brit, USA

With respect Frieda, Civil Partnerships are not marriages, they are just legal unions that offer most of the rights of marriage, nothing more. The Labor government is on record as stating that they are not marriages, lets not delude ourselves but I applaud your comfort zone attending such ceremonies. My apologies to Alan and JP in my previous comments. I meant to have said…”it too is expected…” in regard to New York and California full marriage equality legislation.Robert, ex-pat Brit, USA

As a gay man and a conservative councillor I don’t recognise Hazel Blears description of the conservative party. When I first told my conservative friends that I was gay I was touched by how supportive they were. But before throwing these insults around I hope the would be deputy leader of the labour party is certain homophobia doesn’t exist in her own constituency party or elsewhere in the Labour movement. Personally I think we should condemn homophobic views regardless of where they come from, rather than blaming one political party or another for them.

With regard to mounting homophobic hate crimes across Europe – there can be not a shred of doubt that the Vatican has played a very large part in stirring up anti-gay feelings especially since the little Bavarian mounted the Papal Throne.Bavaria was the home of Nazism and there are so many clues that those same attitudes exist there even today. When the buried truth comes out about Ratzinger’s upbringing and background so manifested in his outlook and opinions,many non Roman Catholics are going to be appalled that the Cardinals could put such a man in that position.

Indeed Hazel?…..and would your pal Gordon go to a Civil Partnership Ceremony too? Almost certainly not.There is a shedload of homophobia in New Labour but it is just hidden by a load of insincere politically correct homophilic hogwash.Deeds not words,Hazel – and the Tories realised the size of the Gay Vote some time ago just as much as New Labour,belatedly,now does.As Chancellor,Brown opposed the financial provisions of the Civil Partnership Act which act in any case was only introduced into British law years after the French and Germans and most of the EU under EU regulations.The truth is that Labour has dragged its feet with the best on Gay Rights and the impetus for it has come from Brussels not the Labour Party.

Gendy… The UK Civil Partnerships Act has nothing to do with EU legislation and never did. Ireland, Italy, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, and Malta are just some of the EU countries with absolutely no formal legal recognition of same-sex relationships. There is currently no obligation from the European Union for these countries to have Civil Unions/Partnerships etc. It’s a shame there isn’t but that is the situation for now.

In relation to the following article: ‘Conductor jailed for abusing boys can still teach':I cannot understand why this article has been included on the Pink News website.This website is supposed to be a Gay News website. Robert King is paedophile who has sexually abused underage boys. There is no mention in the article of his adult sexual orientation.Men who abuse underage boys are not necessarily homosexual in their adult sexual orientation. To include articles like this on a Gay News website sends out a dangerous message that there is some sort of link between gay men and peadophiles who abuse boys.

It makes no sense that this woman in Montreal feels entitled to be served at a bar like LeStud. Gay men don’t exist to entertain straight women. The bar’s policy may be discrimination under the law, but there is nothing ethically wrong gay men wanting to preserve cultural spaces beyond the reach of heterosexual authority. THe fact that Ms. Vachon and her father feel “accepting” of gay is beside they point–they act as if gay culture should be all about THEM, a if we’re a bunch of pathetic urchins waiting for a pat on the head from “accepting” straights. As a gay man I consider myself an absolut equal to all straights and therefore their acceptance doesn’t concern me–they don’t have the moral authority to approve or disapprove of equals. So the real issue in Montreal is that hyper-privileged straight girl has been told that there is one small place in the world that doesn’t revolve around her, and she’s behaving like a spoiled child about it.

Wait, let me get this slightly crooked. hetero’s should not present themselves to the “elite” homo! Who are you to decide who is deserving of praise! You are lucky that anyone should except your “happy” lifestyle! Move on queer! Thatb is what you really are. I do not have a problem with you people, but i do have a problem with people who have a problem excepting people who except people who have a problem. You are no different from the rest of the human race. It is obvious to me that people are the problem with the world today! That is the thing that we should accept, not you or me. We are here to serve WHOEVER wants to be served, a-hole, so do humanity a favor by getting over yourself, richard

Lloyd: First of all, learn the difference between the words accept and except. They’re not interchangeable. I love excepting straights and I’m going to keep at it.Newsflash: gay people are fully developed, EQUAL citizens, and it isn’t up to you whether to accept us or not. Your acceptance is immaterial since you’er not above us in any regard. Given your odd use of the word except “you people” (since you like that phrase) seem to be a bit beneath us where vocabulary is concerned.Newsflash 2: You are making my point FOR me and I hope everybody else notices. When gays are not grateful for your acceptance you all get petulant. Evidently you and Audrey Vachon think that we queers are just fine as long as we entertain straight chicks and don’t consider our feelings as important as yours.Newsflash 3: I’m proud as hell to be queer, was it supposed to be an insult? I don’t get it.

This is or should be a national disgrace. If this young woman had sought asylum because she were Jewish fleeing persecution, I’m sure our government would never deport her back to an oppressive regime. It only goes to show that homphobia is the last vestige of hatred in our society. If this woman is executed, then our government will be complicit in genocide. So much for equality. Note how none of the mainstream religious denominations are not getting involved. I’m totally disgusted with our government.Robert, ex-pat Brit.

Irainian Lesbian Deportation Delayed!What a shame that it even is Thought to send this woman back to Iran to her certain death!This would be as heinous as Israel Stopping those Durfar Refugees refuge!When drowning people are asking for help you don’t throw them a pail of water!!!

Political asylkum – no question (after all politicians may need it some time). Colour – probably.Sexuality in terms of an infamous homophobic homicidal country – oh damn, a court has stopped us sending this lesbain back.What sort of inhumane rules infest our legal system, and what soret of people enforce it?!

Yeah, great video there Malcolm, just a cheap-ass advertisement for your books and art. Well done on demeaning a valid argument for tolerance in the police force with your selfish need to get your crap some air time.